Mr. Speaker, we heard a lengthy dissertation on the costs of addressing climate change, but what greatly disappointed me was that we did not hear one second of discussion by my colleague across the way about the costs of not acting on climate change. The longer we delay, the higher the costs rise, including, as the member would like to go on and on about, the cost of the carbon tax.

There were two measures that the Conservative government promised. When Jim Prentice was the minister of the environment, he said there was going to be cap and trade, but after 10 years in power, nothing had happened. One thing the Conservative government actually did was put in place an eco-energy retrofit program, which was oversubscribed and very popular because it helped to bring down the costs for people who could not afford to pay their energy bills. What did it do when it was over? It yanked the program.

Could the member speak to exactly what measures he thinks are useful and why he is not also equally concerned about the fact that the costs to address climate change are rising, given that for 10 years the Conservative government did not act and the Liberals are thinking about acting?

Mr. Speaker, I see the member is attempting to change the subject. She does not want to address the matter at hand, which is that the government is imposing a federally mandated tax without revealing to Canadians what it will cost them.

It adds all these new costs and claims that they are all revenue neutral, but it is not prepared to release any of the data it has in its possession to prove that this in fact is the case.

The government could clear up all of the ambiguity today by revealing, unredacted, the calculations that its departments have done on the matter. If the government comes into the House of Commons and seeks consent to table that information, we on this side of the House, in the spirit of non-partisanship, will allow it to do so.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to taxation, there are always people who will pay more or pay less. I want to talk about tax cuts, which is a favourite topic of the members across the way, and I want to talk about the two-point reduction in the GST. Had that not happened, we would not be talking about deficits today, including the $150 billion that the Conservative government rang up when it was in power.

To turn this subject on its head a bit, I want to ask the hon. member who benefited the most from that two-point reduction in the GST. Was it the well-to-do who bought an $80,000 Bimmer or the less well-to-do who had to settle for a $3,000 beater?

Mr. Speaker, the answer, of course, is that consumption taxes are the most regressive, and therefore, in percentage terms, a reduction in the GST disproportionately helps people of low income.

However, the member across the way, in stating his opposition to former prime minister Harper's GST cuts, reveals that there is support in the Liberal caucus for raising the GST back up to 7%. It is no surprise. The Liberals are spending money they do not have. They are starting to run out of other people's money and they will be looking for ways to take that out of the pockets of everyday Canadian consumers and taxpayers.

I thank that member for accidentally telling the truth about his party's fiscal agenda, which is to raise taxes, including consumption taxes, which we know will disproportionately harm those with the least.

Mr. Speaker, it was not clear through the long presentation on carbon taxes whether the Conservative Party in opposition plans to vote for this motion. Clearly the Paris agreement is one to which Canada is legally committed, and we should remain committed.

However, I did want to take him up on the, I think, quite misleading and inaccurate statements about British Columbia's carbon tax. It is revenue neutral. In fact, to the extent it is not neutral, the best new data shows that the government is paying out more in tax cuts than it is receiving in carbon price, because the previous government, under Christy Clark, stalled the application of the tax, which should increase year on year.

Further, the reason that any document has been redacted, as we have debated before in this place, is that it was prepared under the Harper administration and therefore cannot possibly have any relevant information about the Liberal government's intentions, unless we presume that everything Mr. Harper did is a blueprint for the Liberals, and I doubt the member for Carleton believes that.

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I do not believe that. It would be quite positive if the Liberals were following the successful blueprint of the previous government.

The member's question, though, is about revenue neutrality of carbon taxes. I understand her position is that a carbon tax should be revenue neutral. I gather from her nodding affirmatively that she thinks they should be revenue neutral and they should not just be a means to increase government coffers.

If that is the case, just release the data. If the government shows us what people are paying in this new carbon tax, then it can make the case that its extra costs are being neutralized by other offsetting tax cuts. So far, the government is not prepared to indicate what this new tax will cost the average Canadian.

I notice that the member also voted against my motion to have them release that data. I do not understand, if she claims that these carbon taxes are all neutral, why she would not have joined in supporting my motion in favour of transparency about the costs of the carbon tax on the average Canadian. She did not because, like so many others, that member, the Liberal Party, and provincial governments that have imposed these taxes really want to fatten government coffers and raise more money for politicians on the backs of hard-working Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need your guidance on this. The member for Carleton just said that he understood my position was revenue neutrality, but then went on to impugn my motives and suggested my motives were quite to the contrary.

I believe, as a point of order, the member cannot attack my character in the course of responding to a question.

While I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her intervention, she will probably know, as all members do, that it is all but impossible for chair occupants to weigh in on the veracity or the words that come in response to questions that are posed in the House.

The member is right in the sense that section18 in the Standing Orders speaks to impugning motive, for example, as it relates to unparliamentary language. I did not hear anything unparliamentary in the member for Carleton's response. Admittedly, it comes close there, but I do not know that it really crossed the line in that case. We will listen carefully for that, as we always do.

We will go to our last question. The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoy listening to the member for Carleton speak. He has a very nice speaking style. Unfortunately, there are contradictions in the content of his speech, and that is something I would like to address.

The member talked a lot about social justice and how any action should not impact on the poorest of Canadians, that there should not be a push to the gap between the rich and the poor. He has gone on and on about that.

However, there is a cost to greenhouse gas. There are real costs to climate change that come from it. In fact, less than a month ago my riding had severe flooding. There was a huge cost involved. What I am seeking to understand is why should that cost not be shared proportionately? For example, in our garbage collection, the more garbage I put out, the more I have to pay. That makes sense to me.

However, when it comes to pollution, why do the rich not not pay more than the poor? Why should the rich be supported by the poor on this one?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words. I do accept the logic that people should generally pay for the costs they incur, rather than offloading those costs onto government.

What I am attempting to have the present government release is what costs will be paid by which taxpayer. The member says that the carbon tax will burden the rich. I find that very hard to believe. Stats Canada has produced data that shows that low-income households spend a third more of a share of their budget on items that will be taxed by this levy than do rich households. That proportionality makes sense.

For low-income people, electricity, food, heat, and gas will be a large share of what they consume. Rich households spend on things that are unrelated to those basic necessities and as a result, in a percentage term, they will pay less in tax.

All I am asking for is that the government release the data it has to indicate how people of various incomes will be impacted by the new tax.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Drummond.

As I said previously in my question to the Minister of Finance, completely baffling is the decision of the government to retable essentially the same motion that was tabled here last fall, which was passed with the support of our party. What is disappointing is the Liberals have come forward with the exact same motion, sadly, missing the amendments we had recommended, which was that they revise their targets to enable them to deliver on their promise in Paris, to at least hold the climate change to a maximum of 2o, let alone their further promise of 1.5o.

I think there is an understanding now, particularly since the United States has said it will pull out the agreement. As one of the members pointed out, it will take four years for that to happen and many people in the world may hope we have a different administration in the United States by then, an administration that previously committed to delivering on the Paris agreement. It is very disappointing.

We look forward to the speeches by the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources. Daily we hear their mantra in here, which is to balance environmental protection with economic development, and that this is the path they will take to address climate change. We are looking forward to hearing the details of how they might be doing that.

Why would we be particularly interested in that? While the government has said that it is determined in every decision it makes on our energy future to balance environmental protection with economic development, it has been very good on one side of that balance by moving expeditiously to approve LNG plants, pipelines, and basically back away from a more intensive review of oil sands operations.

We recently received the report from UNESCO where it investigated the impacts of the oil sands and the Site C dam on a world heritage site in northern Alberta. UNESCO has directed that our nation will lose that world heritage site designation unless the government steps up to the plate and starts doing its job and better regulating the impact of the oil sands on the whole Peace-Athabasca Delta. It has called for a second review assessment of the Site C dam because the federal government, before giving the okay for Site C, did not consider the potential transboundary impacts into Alberta on the world heritage site. Why is that significant? Even during the review of Site C, intervenors came forward and said that building dams on this scale were massively expensive. Also, there did not appear to be the demand for that scale of a project, a demand that was realistically forecast to probably be delivered through geothermal, solar and wind. That was dispensed with.

The government is saying the right things, but we are deeply concerned that it is not necessarily moving in that direction.

Also, the government is still sticking with Stephen Harper's targets. It is a complete mystery not just to those of us in our party, but to all of those who are deeply dedicated to a transition to cleaner energy. The non-governmental organizations, the institutes, the scientists, and the people in the solar, wind, and geothermal sector are troubled. If we are to deliver on those commitments in Paris, then we have to come to the reality that we have to dig even much deeper to reduce.

That means the government has to move on another promise as well, which is to more rapidly get rid of the perverse incentives for the fossil fuel sector. We are not just saying that. The Auditor General has chastised the government for not moving more expeditiously. Now, of course, the previous Conservative government also committed to other nations that it would move expeditiously to remove those perverse incentives. It did not. This government has admitted today, through the finance minister, that it has taken one small measure. The Auditor General is saying it is not good enough.

We like the fact that the government is espousing the policy that it wants to move toward a cleaner energy economy. The Liberals agree with us that we are facing a serious challenge in the planet. We share their concern with the United States saying that it is going to pull out. However, I should not say the United States, but the President of the United States has said that. We are delighted to hear, as I am sure many in the country are, that many of the U.S. states, I think more than 80 mayors of U.S. towns, and many in major industries, including the fossil fuel industry, have said that they will continue down the path of divesting from fossil fuels and moving toward a cleaner economy. However, that means we have to step up our pace.

The government has announced again that it will have a big shindig with China and Europe here in the fall. However, what additional can Canada do to fill that gap? The United States of America, as I understand, contributes 25% of the greenhouse gases on this planet. The Canadian government has only committed to reduce part of the emissions that we emit, not even the emissions that are necessary to meet the Paris target. Therefore, one would think that the finance minister and other ministers of the government would have come forward today and told us what additional, deeper, faster initiatives the Liberals have committed to meet the promise they have made to the planet. It is concerning.

In April of this year, Environment Canada reported that the greenhouse gas emissions in the country were continuing to rise and that the government's 2030 target would not be met. In fact, if we progressed with using the initiatives the government had committed to, we would be almost 200 megatonnes over even that minimal target made by the Harper government. We are glad the government is saying the right things, but what we are disappointed in is where are the hard, concrete initiatives to move in that direction?

We are deeply troubled despite all this talk of the Liberals' deep commitment to assist families to reduce their energy use and to help Canadians get into the cleaner energy economy. Indeed, it is the booming economy in the world these days. I look at at pages 149 and 150 of their budget daily because people ask me questions about this. They want to know exactly what the government is doing to commit to move us forward expeditiously. People are stunned to see that in both columns of initiatives that have been listed by the Liberals, including the support for the pan-Canadian initiative of the provinces and territories, by and large, zero dollars actually have been committed.

As I mentioned previously, the sooner we invest the better, because it will simply become more expensive. Either the carbon tax will have to rise more expeditiously or we will have to invest more money in parallel measures. Therefore, it is deeply troubling that the government says one thing, but it is not releasing the concrete measures to move forward as expeditiously as the Liberals are pretending.

Why in heavens did the government not bring back the eco-energy retrofit program? It is completely baffling. The Liberals go on and on about the carbon tax as the most effective measure to move forward and address the rise in greenhouse gases in Canada. However, review after review, including by people who are very supportive of the direction the government is going, have said that the carbon tax alone will not do it, that the government needs to be expediting parallel measures.

One of those measures is the eco-energy retrofit. If Canadians in their homes and in small businesses are to have a carbon tax imposed on them, particularly in the jurisdictions where the Liberals say they will have to impose a federal tax, then one way to potentially sell that and get buy-in is to say they will help them reduce their energy use. It is baffling. Also, there is the national building code. We need to expedite that. Article after article about this says that we need to be fast-tracking a more modern national building code. How much of the building stock is going to be built again and then go through the process of having to retrofit? It would be welcomed if the government moved forward on these two measures.

We have heard the Minister of Environment recently go on and on about the government looking forward to collaborating with its European neighbours. I would encourage the government to look at the United Kingdom, which has established, by law, binding targets and an independent commission that audits and advises it on how well it is delivering on its targets every five years. This is the kind of measure that we tabled previously, and we would like to see the government adopt it to ensure transparency and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Edmonton Strathcona, who has been working on this issue for decades, as have I.

As she pointed out, the Paris agreement sets long-term targets that are essential to ensuring that civilization can survive. That is why it aims at ensuring that the global average temperature does not increase 2° more compared to the global average temperature before the industrial revolution, and why there is the all-important target of striving to avoid going above a 1.5° global average temperature increase. The difference between 1.5° and 2° is not the difference between a safe zone and another safe zone. Two degrees is a large degree of gamble on such things as losing the western Antarctic ice sheet, or all of the low-lying island states almost certainly being submerged.

I agree with what my hon. friend suggested in her speech. Would she agree with me that we need to see more being done? Over 30 U.S. states and over 80 U.S. mayors have said they will continue to work to achieve the Paris targets. We need to step up Canada's role because our current target is incompatible with the long-term Paris goals. Would my hon. friend from Edmonton Strathcona agree that this is the moment to withdraw our weak target and ratchet up and do more?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been dedicated to this topic for quite a few decades.

What troubles me is that there are many simple things that could be done that are actually on the list of matters in the budget that the government recognizes should be done. The government has said that it will help northern communities to get off diesel, and this would be relatively easy to do. A good reason for that is because diesel is contaminating those communities. However, zero dollars have been committed this year to help in doing that.

Why is that critical? It is critical because at the same time that our indigenous communities are begging for support to build better, high-quality housing, we could be building energy-efficient housing and putting measures in place to switch them over from diesel fuel.

There are so many measures that are not astronomical in price that could make all the difference in the world to supporting these communities. I would like to see the government move forward with more money in the supplementaries for real measures.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the member on the environment committee. We have been able to come to a lot of agreement on a number of reports, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on that.

I agree with my colleague that we need to take a multitude of different approaches to dealing with climate change and trying to reduce the footprint of pollution that we are creating today. Our government has done an exceptional job in moving in that direction.

By imposing a price on pollution, by investing in innovation, we are hollowing out the need for fossil fuel-based energy. We are creating greater amounts of green technology and reducing the cost of that technology through these investments. We are also working on adopting better building codes and a regulatory regime that would have an impact on the burning of fossil fuels and reduction of our footprint in that direction.

Would the member not agree that these are the kinds of measures we need to take? We have further to go, but at least we are heading in the direction that we need to go in.

Mr. Speaker, I have no quibbles with the list of initiatives that are listed in the budget. My quibble is that there are no dollars. For the life of me, I do not understand that while the deficit is rising, it is not coming from investments in cleaner energy, or from investments in reducing homeowners' energy costs.

The Liberal government, to its credit, followed in the footsteps of Alberta, which moved toward a faster period to shut down coal-fired power, a campaign that I worked on for many years. That is costing the Government of Alberta a lot of money. When the federal government said it would speed that up, why did it not provide some dollars to help with those costs? Alberta could then have put more money into helping people to retrofit and helping to move toward renewable power.

I would like to see more innovation and more fast-tracked support, with real dollars, and not to support merely thinking and planning.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on reiterating our support for the Paris Accord. I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who gave an excellent speech and is very familiar with the issue.

Of course, we reiterate our support for the Paris Agreement. It is strange that the Liberal government has decided to use today's motion to do something that has already been done, rather than take further action and adopt a plan or stronger legislation to fight against climate change.

The NDP has been at the forefront of this issue for a long time, and it has called for strong and robust legislation that responds to needs related to climate change. Jack Layton, who was once my boss, worked very hard on this issue. He tabled a bill on the government's responsibility regarding climate change, because signing an agreement is not enough. We also have responsibilities. Year after year, the government has to be accountable and must take concrete action, but the Liberal government does none of that, although it is very important.

In 2010, when the Liberals were in opposition along with the NDP, this bill received a majority vote from the opposition parties, because the Conservative government was the minority at the time. We had led this very strong bill, which constituted a much more ambitious framework than that of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, which was unambitious but was still adopted by the Liberals. Unfortunately, the senators, who are unelected, killed Jack Layton's bill, which was intended to strengthen the fight against climate change. It is very disappointing.

Today, we are talking about Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord, but I remember that when I arrived in the House, in 2011, the government withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. We must not forget that. It was absolutely deplorable. Some people say we should follow the Conservatives’ lead, but I have my doubts.

Let us say what needs to be said about the Liberals. They went to Paris and signed an important accord to limit temperature increases to 1.5°C, which is very important. Then they came back to Canada and said that in order to achieve that, they were going to keep the Conservatives’ pitiful plan. It does not work. Obviously, there were people who said that we could not go on like that. We need to take real action in order to move forward on this.

For the moment, to move forward, the Liberals have put a price on carbon. I would like to say that this is a very good initiative. Everyone that is serious about fighting climate change, including every scientist and environmentalist, says this has to be the first thing we do. On that subject, the Conservative Party alone in the House does not seem to understand this, except for a certain Conservative member who was a candidate in his party’s leadership race. This is extremely important. I hope that everyone will realize that this is a good measure and we have to move forward.

However, while a price on carbon is a step in the right direction, it is not sufficient. We have to have a comprehensive plan, and in that regard, the Liberals have only failures to show. They were supposed to invest $1 billion a year, starting in 2016, to implement the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, but ultimately, they did nothing.

We were waiting for action in the 2017 budget, but what was announced in 2017? Nothing. What is going on, we wonder? There is also nothing in 2018. They will start investing when the next election comes around.

This is unfortunately very disappointing. We have to act; everyone says that today. I recall very clearly the report of the round table on the environment and the economy. The only federal institution that combined economy and environment said that when it came to climate change, not acting would result in losses of $5 billion per year by 2020, and eventually $43 billion by 2050. Investing $1 billion per year is not that much when we consider that it may be costing as much as $5 billion per year at present. Unfortunately, the Liberals have put nothing in place to combat that. Once again, the round table on the environment and the economy, the only non-partisan institution that put the economy and the environment together, was abolished by the Conservatives, and that is a sad track record, if I can come back to that.

What needs to be done now? What should the Liberals do? They should read the recommendations from the Green Budget Coalition, a coalition of scientists and environmentalists who researched and developed a balanced budget that sets out commitments the government should make and how those actions will save money.

For example, as members pointed out, we have to invest in all kinds of measures. Fine, but which ones? The parliamentary budget officer mentioned this, and the Green Budget Coalition recommended that the Government of Canada bring in a law with a timeline established in budget 2017 to eliminate all preferential tax treatment for the fossil fuel industry. The Minister of Finance, who spoke earlier, did not follow those recommendations. Bottom line, no more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, which currently gets about $1.5 billion per year.

Certain governments received fossil awards at international climate change conferences. The message is that they should turn away from fossil fuels and toward fair energy policy and decarbonization.

There is another important recommendation, an essential recommendation. In 2012, I moved a motion on the federal government's plan on energy efficiency, which my colleague talked about earlier. The current Liberal government has not presented any plan to improve energy efficiency. This is very disappointing.

Here is what our plan states, and I quote:

To support energy efficiency, the Green Budget Coalition recommends that the Government of Canada provide $400 million per year for the next five years to re-establish an energy efficiency home retrofit program, similar to the ecoENERGY Retrofit program...

I had proposed a program similar to the eco-energy program. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not support it, and the Liberals did not bring it back, as they should have.

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word “realistic and achievable approach”, and substituting the following: “and by finding the right balance between environmental protection and economic growth, and that the House ask the government to commit to new science-based targets that will achieve Canada's commitment under the Accord, and to specific measures and funding to achieve these reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand some of the comments the member made. Given that his party, in the last election, claimed it was going to balance the budget, he is talking an awful lot about how much money he would spend on trying to satisfy our climate change commitments. He criticized our government for the lack of spending that he sees with respect to our commitments, yet there has been $20 billion for public transit, $20 billion for climate change and green infrastructure, and billions of dollars invested in innovation.

Given the commitments that we have made to try to tackle and meet our climate change commitments, how in the world was his party planning to do so and balance the budget at the same time?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House of what my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona said earlier. The Liberals are not currently running a deficit because of all the investments that they have made in combatting climate change. They are running a deficit because of their own mismanagement. They have invested practically nothing in the fight against climate change. However, if my hon. colleague wants some advice on how to balance the budget and address climate change, I suggest that he read the recommendations made by the Green Budget Coalition. Scientists and environmentalists from across the country made recommendations for a balanced budget that fights against climate change.

The first thing we need to do is to eliminate the some $1.5 billion in subsidies given to fossil fuels and invest that money in an energy efficiency program, as I have been proposing since 2012.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would be able to tell me what his feelings are with respect to this. We heard the other side say it would throw millions of dollars here and billions of dollars there. What about the initiatives that we have going on in this country right now, such as what was mentioned earlier, getting rid of diesel generation in our rural communities and improving things like solar and thermal energy?

I wonder if he could comment on where we could spend money within our country on items that we already know are proven to reduce greenhouse gases.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. The Liberal government has been dragging its feet for two years and will continue to do so in the coming years. In the 2016 budget, $1 billion was supposed to be allocated to the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change to support measures like the ones my colleague mentioned and to help northern communities that unfortunately have to use diesel fuel as a source of electricity and heating.

The government could invest in this fair energy transition. It is extremely important, and the NDP has a plan to move forward with the transition toward renewable, low-carbon energy that would also be fair for Canadians.

The government needs to think about that transition and support those who would be negatively affected by it. They need to be supported.

Does the hon. member think that the government should have used its latest budget to bring back the eco-energy building retrofit program and to promote sustainable building in order to help protect the environment and create jobs at the same time?

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the government should also have invested in affordable housing. I know that my hon. colleague from Hochelaga does a tremendous amount of work on supporting and promoting affordable housing. In future investments, we must ensure that the National Building Code is improved and updated to include energy efficiency in every construction project, not just for homes, but also for buildings, industries, businesses, and other structures.

This is a tangible measure that the Liberal government should have put in place two years ago already. It could have introduced an energy efficiency program that is good not only for fighting climate change, but also for creating jobs and allowing low-income Canadians to save money on heating and their home energy needs.

It is a very important measure that could have been included in the plan to fight climate change. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has yet to do that.

Mr. Speaker, Alfred-Pellan is bursting with talented people who do amazing things every day.

Today I would like to share some of their achievements in several different categories: Chloé Panetta in figure skating; Anne-Sophie Gagnon-Métellus, a young singer who participated in a show called Virtuose; and Jessica Delnegro, in equestrian events.

Many other people in my riding deserve recognition. That is why I am looking forward to July, when I will be giving Canada 150 medals to winners of my “150 outstanding citizens” contest. Details are on my website.

Mr. Speaker, how many times must we rise to condemn these barbaric terrorist acts that keep happening? How many times must we rise to tell the victims' loved ones that our hearts go out to them, to tell the wounded that we wish them a swift recovery? How many more times before we end up just getting used to it?

London Bridge will not fall down. Manchester will remain united. We will stand together in solidarity, and we are asking the government and the entire world to do everything in their power to stop these cowardly terrorist attacks on our way of life.

It is time to take action. These crimes must stop. Is this the world we want to see our kids grow up in? We have a duty to act in memory of the victims and for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, with Canada's 150th birthday fast approaching, I proudly rise in the House to share a little piece of history stemming from my riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

The first Dominion Day in Barkerville, British Columbia, took place just past midnight, July 1, 1868 before B.C. was even part of Canada. Unfortunately, cannons were in short supply so black-powder charges were detonated between stacked anvils, providing an improvised 21-gun salute. I am told the celebration was filled with games, laughter, and of course, fireworks.

Historical records would suggest that Barkerville began celebrating Dominion Day 11 years before it was even officially nationally celebrated. Once again, we are presented with an example of the true pioneering spirit of the Cariboo.

As we reflect on the past and now look forward to the 150th birthday celebrations happening in just a few short weeks, I wish members and their families all a happy Canada Day and indeed a happy Dominion Day.